Filters
Question type

Study Flashcards

To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

[Chewer] Naomie lives in a state that has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. The statute's purpose is to protect neighbors of dog owners from potential injury or property damage. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Naomie's dog, while not on a leash, gets out of her backyard and goes next door to Pavel's house. Pavel left his gym bag on his back porch, and the dog chews up the bag and all its contents, including Pavel's gym shoes. Another neighbor sees the whole thing happen and informs Pavel. Pavel knows that this isn't the first time the dog has gotten loose and destroyed property, and Naomie has done nothing to warn anyone or prevent the dog from getting loose. -Which theory will Pavel likely rely on to seek recovery from Naomie for his damaged personal property?


A) None, the damage was to personal property not to real property
B) Res ipsa loquitur
C) Negligence to property
D) Negligence per se
E) Dram shop doctrine

F) C) and D)
G) B) and D)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Deb lives in a jurisdiction where all residential swimming pools are required by law to be enclosed by a fence that is at least six feet tall in order to prevent accidental drowning. Deb built a pool in her backyard a couple of months ago, but she hasn't had the extra money with which to build the fence. Unfortunately, one of the neighborhood children goes swimming in the pool and drowns. The parents of the child sue Deb. Discuss how the parents would likely go about proving their case and the elements that would be required.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

The parents would likely rely on the doc...

View Answer

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. -Does actual cause exist in the bank's action against Teresa?


A) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been destroyed if Teresa had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
B) Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy, it is believed that someone who rear-ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.
C) Actual cause is present because Teresa was the legal cause of the bank burning.
D) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the legal cause of the bank burning.
E) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.

F) C) and E)
G) B) and D)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Res ipsa loquitur allows a judge or jury to infer that the defendant's negligence was, more likely than not, the cause of the plaintiff's harm.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio. -Is Rogerio liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?


A) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam had no legal duty to come to the aid of the other divers.
B) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam assumed the risk of harm.
C) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because the shark attack constituted a superseding cause of the injuries.
D) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries only if he made them worse by not getting Sam medical attention on a timely basis.
E) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries under the danger invites rescue doctrine.

F) B) and D)
G) B) and C)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

What is the term for when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?


A) Implied assumption of the risk.
B) Express assumption of the risk.
C) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Assumption by incident.

F) B) and D)
G) D) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Which of the following was the result on appeal in John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Team, the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued after being hit in the eye by a hot dog thrown into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary activity during games?


A) The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defense on the basis that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by hot dog because the tossing of the hot dogs was a customary event of which the plaintiff was or should have been aware before attending the game.
B) The court dismissed the case on the basis that injuries at baseball games are an inherent part of the sport whether by baseball or by hot dog.
C) The court dismissed the case on the basis that through a click agreement the plaintiff expressly agreed not to sue for any injuries when ordering the tickets through the Internet.
D) The court affirmed a jury verdict finding for the defense on the basis that the plaintiff did not immediately report his injuries to stadium officials.
E) The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk defense and that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hot dog by attending the game.

F) B) and E)
G) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

[Chewer] Naomie lives in a state that has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. The statute's purpose is to protect neighbors of dog owners from potential injury or property damage. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Naomie's dog, while not on a leash, gets out of her backyard and goes next door to Pavel's house. Pavel left his gym bag on his back porch, and the dog chews up the bag and all its contents, including Pavel's gym shoes. Another neighbor sees the whole thing happen and informs Pavel. Pavel knows that this isn't the first time the dog has gotten loose and destroyed property, and Naomie has done nothing to warn anyone or prevent the dog from getting loose. -Punitive damages are most likely to be awarded against Naomie if:


A) The court finds Naomie committed gross negligence.
B) The court believes punitive damages are compensatory.
C) The judge personally disagrees with Naomie's behavior.
D) The plaintiff asks for punitive damages.
E) Naomie committed simple negligence.

F) B) and E)
G) D) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Which of the following is sometimes referred to as proximate cause?


A) Actual cause.
B) Cause in fact.
C) Legal cause.
D) Significant cause.
E) Factual cause.

F) A) and E)
G) B) and C)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio. -Did Rogerio have a duty to provide assistance to Tamika and Billy during the dive?


A) Rogerio had no duty to provide any assistance to them.
B) Rogerio had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.
C) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to the dive.
D) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.
E) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.

F) A) and B)
G) C) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Louisa decides to go on a zip line adventure. She signs a contract before she begins to go on the zip line, which says that she assumes the risks of accident or injury. While walking up the steps to grab the zip line, Louisa falls down due to a broken hand rail on the stairs. Could the property owner be held responsible?


A) No, because of Louisa's express assumption of the risk.
B) No, because of Louisa's implied assumption of the risk.
C) No, because Louisa fell on her own.
D) Yes, because a fall due to a faulty handrail was not the type of risk Louisa had assumed in the contract.
E) Yes, because she had not yet started zip lining but after she actually grabbed the line, the company would no longer be held responsible.

F) A) and C)
G) C) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

[Chewer] Naomie lives in a state that has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. The statute's purpose is to protect neighbors of dog owners from potential injury or property damage. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Naomie's dog, while not on a leash, gets out of her backyard and goes next door to Pavel's house. Pavel left his gym bag on his back porch, and the dog chews up the bag and all its contents, including Pavel's gym shoes. Another neighbor sees the whole thing happen and informs Pavel. Pavel knows that this isn't the first time the dog has gotten loose and destroyed property, and Naomie has done nothing to warn anyone or prevent the dog from getting loose. -Pavel should seek which of the following damages against Naomie in order to punish her and deter her from letting the dog run free?


A) Punitive.
B) Compensatory.
C) Nominal.
D) Liquidated.
E) There are no such damages available.

F) B) and E)
G) C) and D)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. -Is Teresa the proximate cause of the bank burning?


A) Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Devin would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.
B) Teresa is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact of the accident.
C) Teresa's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.
D) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because actual cause is present.
E) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because cause in fact can be established.

F) C) and D)
G) B) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Darrick owns a specialty hardware store that specializes in saw blades. Does he have to post any type of warning about the saw blades?


A) No, a business owes no duty to its customers other than to sell safe products.
B) Yes, a business owes an absolute duty to keep its customers safe and is strictly liable for any harm.
C) No, a business only owes a minimal duty toward customers.
D) No, a business owes a negligence per se duty toward customers.
E) Yes, a business has a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.

F) A) and E)
G) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Negligent torts involve willfully refusing to exercise extraordinary care to protect another's person or property.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

A teenager plays Grand Theft Auto and runs over people in the game. The teen decides to recreate the game in real life, driving his vehicle up onto the sidewalk and running over two people. The victims pursue a claim against the maker of Grand Theft Auto for negligence, arguing the game makers had a duty of care. Are the victims likely to prevail?


A) Yes, because studies have shown a link between violent video games and real-life violence.
B) Yes, because the teen admitted Grand Theft Auto was his inspiration.
C) Yes because teenagers are impressionable and video game makers have a duty not to expose them to violence.
D) No, because the game makers were not personally in the car at the time of the incident.
E) No, because courts have consistently found it is not foreseeable that playing certain video games or viewing certain websites would result in users committing murder.

F) None of the above
G) A) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Actual cause is also known as ________.


A) Proximate cause
B) Legal cause
C) Cause in fact
D) Cause for certainty
E) Proximately related cause

F) A) and B)
G) B) and D)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Keeping animals that have not been domesticated can result in strict liability.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Landowners do not have any duty of care to protect individuals on their property.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Showing 21 - 40 of 90

Related Exams

Show Answer